On Tue, 6 Jun 2006, Douglas Otis wrote:
On Jun 6, 2006, at 10:17 AM, Tony Finch wrote:
Douglas Otis <dotis(_at_)mail-abuse(_dot_)org> wrote:
A new ESMTP extension DATA-CALLBACK.
You should use BURL for this.
An IMAP server could leverage this extension. I had imagined the split would
happen at the body, but the exchanged reference could repeat the entire header
and message.
BURL isn't necessarily tied to IMAP, and the URL it carries doesn't
necessarily have to refer to the whole of the message data: you can use
BDAT chunks to transfer other fragments of the message, and they do not
have to share any higher-level boundaries.
Or (as has already meen mentioned) you could use MIME external-body parts.
However, in both cases postmasters are unlikely to want to use these
extensions because they make content security scanning harder, not easier.
(MIME external bodies are already frequently blocked.)
I really don't see any advantages to the IM2000 idea. Here's Jim MacLeod's
list of IM2000 advantages:
- it pushes the email burden back onto the sender - for real, not like
many anti-spam companies claim.
What burden? Spamware generates the junk email on the fly.
- it makes the sender easier to track.
Moreso than the web site URLs in existing spam?
- it would seem to reduce the spam-zombie problem by requiring that
inbound connections to the mail sender be available through the firewall.
Greylisting is already effective.
- it gives the receiving MTA the option not to retrieve the email message.
We already have that option: 550 no thanks, sonny-jim.
Tony.
--
f.a.n.finch <dot(_at_)dotat(_dot_)at> http://dotat.at/
FORTIES CROMARTY FORTH TYNE DOGGER: SOUTH OR SOUTHWEST BECOMING VARIABLE 3 OR
4, OCCASIONALLY 5 AT FIRST. SHOWERS. MODERATE OR GOOD, WITH FOG PATCHES LATER.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg